http://local.citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/
Cities and SchoolsenCopyright 20182018-10-15T19:38:00+00:00https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/site/to-live-in-the-community-you-serve-school-district-employee-housing-in-california
https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/site/to-live-in-the-community-you-serve-school-district-employee-housing-in-california#When:19:38:00ZFaced with high turnover and a shortage of qualified teachers, California school districts are aggressively adopting new strategies to recruit and retain teachers and staff. A prominent and ambitious strategy is employee housing assistance – particularly direct creation of new rental housing.

Employee housing strategies by school districts have emerged as a direct response to the housing affordability crisis in California (for both rental and ownership). The housing affordability crunch is most acute in employment-rich coastal urban areas like Los Angeles and the Bay Area. Across California, school districts, local governments, state governments, private developers, nonprofits, and foundations have taken up the cause of providing affordable housing for school district employees.

Yet these are largely untested waters. As school districts begin to wade in and consider the possibility of providing employee housing, school district leaders – along with their development partners – are looking for answers to critical questions:

Do our district employees need housing assistance and would they be interested in living in district-owned employee housing?

How do we finance and develop a school district employee housing project?

What are the most pressing technical hurdles for implementation – from legality and employee eligibility to operations and management?

Recently, the Center for Cities + Schools released my study on school district employee housing in California. In this report I review the current school district employee housing landscape and present findings from a study for Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD), which specifically addresses the first overarching question above. I also consider approaches to the other two questions, focusing on the challenges in financing and implementing this emerging typology of school district employee housing. The findings and implications offer insights to school districts across California and the country.

Key Findings from BUSD Study

Employing a survey that we designed and administered to all BUSD employees, as well as an internal employee data set, my analysis shows that BUSD employees do need assistance with rental housing and that employees are interested in the prospect of living in district-owned rental housing. Specifically, I identified the following key points:

1. BUSD renter employees are experiencing financial pressures due to high housing costs

More than half of BUSD renters (53%) are cost burdened (spend more than 30% of their income on housing), while 21% are severely cost burdened (spend more than 50% of their income on housing). To further understand the potential pressures associated with high housing costs, we asked employees a series of questions about their housing experiences. As seen in the responses below, renters are experiencing financial pressures due to the cost of housing – greater pressures than those facing owners – which may affect their ability to remain with the district long-term.

2. Most BUSD employees do not live in Berkeley, and their travel to work compounds the pressures they are experiencing from their housing situation

Additionally, I found that most BUSD employees do not actually live where they work – only 30% of all employees, and only 26% of renters, live in Berkeley. Renters tend to have longer commutes than owners and are on the whole less happy with their commute situations: 59% of renters would like to live closer to work, compared to 39% of owners. As one renter stated: “I don’t want to have to commute from great distances (i.e., Fairfield, Moraga) for cheaper housing only to have to spend that extra money on transportation or a car.” This double bind is typical of the housing challenges confronting many lower and middle income residents in California’s high-cost urban areas. But living where you work is especially critical for teachers and other school staff, as another employee detailed: “If I lived in Berkeley, it would cut down the cost of commuting. It would also save time in my daily commute to and from work. I would likely participate in more evening/weekend events at my school if I lived closer.”

3. There is significant interest in BUSD-owned employee rental housing among current renters

In addition to finding a clear need for housing assistance among BUSD renters, my analysis shows that nearly three-quarters of renters (74%) would be interested in living in BUSD-owned employee rental housing. Additionally, two-thirds of renters (67%) think the option of district housing would increase the likelihood that they continue to work in the district, a direct link to the overarching strategy of increasing retention and recruitment through housing assistance. I also found that employees did not see BUSD housing as an alternative to homeownership, but rather as a potential avenue to homeownership. One employee noted: “I’m interested in affordable housing options because that would allow me the opportunity to save up money towards buying a home close to where I work.”

An Emerging Typology

While not all districts have the same underlying conditions as those found in Berkeley, the BUSD case is emblematic of the situation in high-cost districts throughout California and offers takeaways for other districts looking to finance, develop, and implement their own employee housing programs.

School district employee housing continues to gain momentum in California, and with few precedent projects but increasingly fervent interest from districts whose employees are feeling the pinch of the affordable housing crisis, district leaders can draw lessons from BUSD. This report provides a series of key recommendations for those districts pursuing their own employee housing plans and offers important context for this emerging – and urgent – new typology:

Listen to Employees: Districts must begin by listening to employees and learning about their housing needs and interests to make sure a housing program is necessary and has broad support.

Understand Scale: It is crucial for districts to determine the scale that will make their project pencil given available funding resources, and that will best suit their goals.

Critically Assess Surplus Properties: Districts now have more incentive to leverage their own property where possible, which means undertaking a comprehensive assessment of all potential surplus properties.

Consider the Positive Non-Housing Effects: District leaders should emphasize the positive spillover benefits of school district employee housing such as the environmental impact of reducing commutes.

Get Creative with Financing: Think Beyond LIHTC: Housing for school district employees is not traditional affordable housing, and as such cannot be financed in quite the same way. It’s time to think outside the box.

Combine with Ownership Assistance: Affordable rental housing offers tenants a prime opportunity to save for a down payment – districts should offer a homeownership assistance program as a complement to rental housing.

Account for Evaluation: As more school district employee housing projects emerge, districts need to invest in robust, longitudinal evaluation programs.

In 2017, we founded [Re]Build America’s School Infrastructure Coalition (BASIC), a non-partisan coalition to advocate for a ten-year $100 billion investment as part of the nation’s critical infrastructure package. But reducing inequity in our nation’s public school facilities will take a variety of tools. These tools are needed at the local, state, and federal levels. Could the new federal Opportunity Zone Program help modernize public school facilities in low income communities?

One of the provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was the creation of “Opportunity Zones” (OZs). Opportunity Zones are structured to provide capital gains relief to investors who invest gains from prior investments into a Qualified Opportunity Fund, which uses the invested cash to invest in a Qualified Opportunity Zone Business. (See sections 1400Z-1 and 1400Z-2 of the Internal Revenue Code).

The deep tax cuts from the bill are likely to stress states and already disadvantaged communities, but the OZ program may be one provision that could be used to benefit low-income communities, not just individuals and corporations seeking to further lower capital gains taxes. But, the jury is out on whether or not the Opportunity Funds will help revitalize low-income communities.

One way to meaningfully impact the economic vitality of low income communities, is to modernize their public school facilities. Modern public school facilities are capital assets that bring educational and economic benefits to schools and their communities. Modernizing the schools themselves provides jobs, and modern school facilities helps retain teachers in schools. Families are more likelyto stay and move to communities with modern school facilities, and employers are more likely to stayand locate in communities where students have experienced modern workforce technologies in school. Community uses for public schools modernized to support health clinics, adult education, recreation, and elder services can be an important contributor to neighborhood well-being and vitality.

And yet, capital financing for school construction is the most regressive public education funding, low income communities suffer inequitably from the $38 billion a year gap in capital requirements. There should be $10 billion a year of block grants to states to help reduce the gap and the inequity, but if IRS clarifies its rules so engaging in public private partnerships with school districts, municipalities, counties, and even states to do public private partnerships to modernize public school infrastructure, communities may be able to accelerate the important modernization of our public school buildings and grounds.

This summer 2018, the IRS designated 8,762 qualified Opportunity Zones (OZs) across the country. Nearly three-fourths (72%) of them have at least one elementary or secondary public school in them. In total, America’s newly designated OZs have 13,536 elementary or secondary public schools. As the pie chart displays, these schools can be found in urban, suburban, town, and rural areas.

The schools in OZs serve a high percentage of children from disadvantaged families. On average, OZ schools have 71% of their students coming from low-income families. On average, OZ schools have 68% of their students coming from racial and ethnic minority households.

From a capital asset perspective, the 13,536 OZ schools use a great deal of infrastructure and land– we estimate about 850 million gross square feet of building space and thousands of acres of land.

Don’t Miss This Opportunity

As we write this, there are many as-yet-unanswered questions about what types of projects the Opportunity Funds will be able to invest in. Preliminary guidance from the IRS is expected soon. A major question that will impact whether investments from Qualified Opportunity Funds can be used for public-private partnerships to benefit public school facilities will be whether this activity will be a “qualified business.” We propose that it should.

Public-private partnerships that align local public needs for modern public school facilities with new private capital, and real estate, project and facilities management professionalism can be done with or without “Opportunity Zones.” But clear IRS guidance that includes public private partnerships to modernize public school facilities as a qualified business could increase the benefits school districts can secure in a public-private partnership, expand the capacity of the public sector to engage in partnerships, and reduce their cost.

]]>Daniela Solis2018-10-08T19:56:00+00:00https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/site/school-as-anchors-of-diversity
https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/site/school-as-anchors-of-diversity#When:22:10:00ZAcross the metropolises of the United States, gentrification is making neighborhoods hardly recognizable. In a short time, what was once a minor force of urban change, gentrification is now sweeping through many cities like a tsunami. By some estimates over the last 15 years, nearly 20 percent of neighborhoods in the 50 largest cities have experienced major gentrification. From New York to Los Angeles, there has been a large influx of middle class families. Some have even begun to do what had long been unthinkable in the post-war decades of white flight from central cities to the suburbs; enroll their children in urban public schools. This process presents a unique opportunity and an enormous challenge. How can our cities and schools welcome gentrification while protecting existing residents?

While in many cases throughout the country schools in gentrifying neighborhoods remain segregated by race and class, in Washington DC something different is happening. Using data from the National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, and the Census, our recent study analyzed school enrollment and segregation trends between 2000 and 2015 in Washington DC’s most rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods. We found that during this period, DC’s fastest gentrifying areas saw a tenfold increase in the white population from approximately 5% to almost 50%. In the classroom, white enrollment in the same areas increased from 1% to 8%. This indicates that white families are beginning to embrace their local public schools.

It also means that racial segregation in these increasingly diverse neighborhoods is declining. Between 2007 and 2014, the amount of hypersegregated traditional public schools, where 90% or more of students are minorities, fell from 67% to 41%. Charter schools saw a more modest decline, from 77% to 70%. Often, when families of color are replaced by gentrifier families with fewer children and little interest in public schools, overall enrollment declines, in DC we found that not to be true.

In fact, DC schools in gentrifying areas saw significant growth, with Black enrollment up 72%, White enrollment, though still small, increased more than tenfold, and the Hispanic enrollment tripled. As this pattern plays out in gentrifying urban communities around Washington and elsewhere, it raises the possibility that long-segregated schools in American’s urban centers could begin a path toward integration.

While neighborhood gentrification presents a positive opportunity to integrate previously segregated communities and schools, this could pose a potential risk of displacement to long-time residents, particularly renters. Some cities and school districts, such as Denver, Portland, Raleigh, New York City and Philadelphia, have begun to develop policies to protect existing, vulnerable communities while welcoming the arrival of this new wave of gentrifiers.

In one of the nation’s most expensive housing markets, with widespread gentrification and the largest school system in the country, New York City is home to some of the most racially segregated schools. Recently the city has released a plan to make its’ schools more representative of the changing demographics of the city. Their strategies include increasing the number of dual language programs and the creation of magnet schools that offer a wide range of distinctive programs and partnerships to attract students of all backgrounds. In addition, the Department of Education is planning to award magnet grants to schools that are more diverse. Simultaneously, in 2017 the NYC City Council approved the “The East Harlem Neighborhood Plan” to address the affordable housing crisis across the city. The plan is part of a comprehensive, community-focused effort aimed at identifying opportunities for the creation of new mixed-income housing and the preservation of existing affordable units.

Another example of a city with rapidly shifting demographics is Denver, Colorado; where the board of education and city officials are setting a good example as they begin to tackle these challenges. To address declining enrollments and combat school segregation The Denver Board of Education recently established a citywide “Strengthening Neighborhoods Initiative”. This initiative developed recommendations to increase integration across the schools such as quantitative targets for school integration, partnerships with transportation and housing authorities, and community outreach.

Source: Denver Public Schools

If school systems can figure out how to create diverse schools amid gentrification, it is possible that historically segregated schools could begin to accrue the benefits associated with desegregation. Desegregated schools are associated with numerous positive outcomes, including academic achievement, enhanced critical thinking and communication, the ability to navigate multiple cultures, and a greater likelihood of living and working in diverse environments later in life. It is likely that the benefits associated with desegregated schools would extend to individuals as well as neighborhoods.

If the goal is to create stable and diverse neighborhoods and communities, we will want to encourage middle-class families to invest in urban neighborhoods and the public schools that come with them. Smart policies that link housing and schools are needed to make sure that urban school systems get this rare opportunity right. Although greater housing production and preservation is necessary in neighborhoods struggling to offset the housing market pressures, this alone is not enough. In order for gentrification to be a shared opportunity, efforts at meaningful integration across the lines of class and race are just as important. Schools, as neighborhood anchors, will serve to ultimately integrate these newly multiracial communities.

Kfir Mordechay is an Assistant Professor at Pepperdine University and a Researcher at the UCLA Civil Rights Project.

]]>Daniela Solis2018-03-05T22:10:00+00:00https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/site/towers-of-power-snapshot-of-a-future-i-want-to-inhabit
https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/site/towers-of-power-snapshot-of-a-future-i-want-to-inhabit#When:21:15:00Z
I am an urban designer and educator. One of the most joyful things I do is facilitate architecture and urban planning studios for elementary school children in public schools through Youth in Arts and UC Berkeley’s Y-PLAN.

Like many adults today, I am asking myself how—in my professional role—can I positively contribute to the #MeToo movement for and with the children in my life? How might I, when I work with young people, respond proactively to the gender inequities and injustices that we are witnessing every day? How can I help both boys and girls express their own power, free from the distortions and abuses of sexism and racism?

In the 30+ years I have been working in the studio or classroom with children—even very young ones—I have observed how they all crave validation for who they are as human beings. Boys and girls openly express the desire to feel that they genuinely matter—to adults, as well as to each other. They are also eager to energetically actualize their potential as makers, doers, and leaders. Unfortunately the messages we all learn about gender and power are ingested at a very young age. Hence, in their quest for personal potency, children often adhere to traditionally defined masculine and feminine forms of power— to the detriment of both.

Within this context, I would like to share a very popular challenge that my colleagues and I pose for children when we start our architectural residencies in their classrooms. It’s called Towers of Power.

To begin, we ask each child to write down five distinctive adjectives describing his or her strengths and talents. When they have a good list of descriptive words such as Creative, Athletic, Musical, Loyal, Friendly, Kind, Smart, they inscribe these words on colorful paper discs and put them aside. Each student then gets a 4” x 4” wooden base, a selection of recycled cabinetmaking wooden pieces, and glue. Their mission is to build a model tower that may not exceed 20” in height nor extend beyond the perimeter of the base. For the next hour or so, the students design and build model skyscrapers—testing structural forces, adding details, and creating their uniquely beautiful edifices. Because of the constraints on the project—especially the limit on height, and width— as the children build their towers they concentrate their energy on qualities such as elegance, strength, and balance. For a finishing touch they artfully affix the colored discs bearing their five adjectives and their name onto their tower.

When the towers are completed, we all step back and behold a stunning array of Towers of Power! In that moment, all of us see an extraordinary “snapshot” of what an egalitarian future might look like. These beautiful structures—built by both boys and girls—stand before us adorned with proud adjectives describing each young architect. These towers stand tall, reflecting the shiny young people who so lovingly created them. They symbolize the many strengths, talents, and gifts these children have to share with the world.

At that point, we challenge the children to present their own tower to the group. We often invite fellow architects and urban planners in to give the children feedback on their work during these presentations. One panelist, an architect, was nearly in tears while the children were sharing their towers. She later told us, “It is so moving to see third grade children, girls in particular, stand before a crowd, and proudly proclaim, ‘I am strong. I am talented. I am creative.’ What an affirming, empowering experience! I never had this opportunity when I was a girl.”

As I reflect upon this project and the hundreds of children who have built their Towers of Power over the years, I am moved to share it with everyone looking for light, optimism, and a new narrative about gender relations. Amidst the stories of sexual harassment, bullying, and discrimination, this project shows that during those early years—before sexism and misogyny become inbred—we can help children define and experience power in new and different ways.

We as adults can, and should, play a role in creating a healthier culture where the pathways to power for both boys and girls are not based upon dominance and submission, but rather equity and mutuality. We can create opportunities for children to experience their personal power and agency with integrity, dignity, and respect. These beautiful children and their Towers of Power offer us all a vision of gender equity and redefined power. Together they compose an image of a future I want to inhabit — NOW!

Public school buildings and grounds need to be fully included in state and federal planning and funding for the nation’s infrastructure.

First, just like other major water, transit, or port infrastructure, school facilities projects require long range planning and forecasting to ensure efficient use of land and other resources. Our nation’s public schools are estimated to be, on average, 44 years old and are multi-purpose facilities in our communities. They are shelters in case of emergencies or disasters, civic centers for voting and public meetings, community hubs for social activities, and green space for parks and recreation. The quality and character of public school facilities affects the larger community over generations. Comprehensive and joint state, regional and municipal planning is critical to environmental and fiscal sustainability across public infrastructure assets.

Second, public school infrastructure, is financed through bonds repaid over many years. Public school construction, like water treatment plants and other infrastructure with multi-generational use, employs capital financing to pay for design, construction and major improvements. This financing of capital requires complex policy and finance associated with securing debt, and the need for adequate revenue streams for repayment. Local school districts alone, had $409 billion of long term debt at the end of fiscal year 2014. School construction is a close 2nd to highways in average annual capital outlay for state and local expenditures.

Third, like nearly all public works projects, the nearly $50 billion a year for school district capital outlay is delivered by the private for-profit building industry. The management and delivery of school construction and building improvements are done under the authority of public commissions, boards, and administrators, but the work is delivered through contracts with private companies. School districts share with their counterparts in water, transportation, utilities and other sectors the need to manage private industry expertise, services and interests from the public interest.

But perhaps most important, is that public education is mission critical to the health, safety and prosperity of our nation. The transfer of knowledge from one generation to another through our public educational system is an essential personal AND public responsibility. The United States has developed a remarkable physical infrastructure – of school buildings and grounds that both delivers education and keeps our children engaged and safe while their parents and guardians work.

It is beyond time, for our leaders in K-12 public school facilities to be at the “transportation and infrastructure” table. State and local public school facilities officials need to be in all state and federal discussions about rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure.

This article originally appeared in School Planning & Management, May 2017.

]]>Cailin2017-07-20T20:32:00+00:00https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/site/school-facilities-and-student-physical-activity
https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/site/school-facilities-and-student-physical-activity#When:20:21:00ZNational experts recommend that, for optimal health, youth get at least 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) a day - which is the kind of movement that gets you sweating and breathing harder. However, youth are far from meeting this recommendation. And, unfortunately, significant disparities exist by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and income. The Institute of Medicine has, logically, identified the school setting as an ideal venue for increasing access to physical activity among diverse youth.

Image Credit: Hannah Thompson

However, many obstacles get in the way of students getting MVPA at school. We know that with limited funding, resources, and physical activity facilities, as well as competing academic priorities, students don’t often achieve the recommended daily 60 minutes of health-enhancing MVPA.

Research has shown that students are more likely to achieve recommended physical activity in schools where the physical environment, the school's programs, and the school's staff all enable physical activity throughout the day. (Although more research is still needed on the vital role school facilities can play in student physical activity accrual). Opportunities for student MVPA include during physical education (PE) class, recess, academic classroom time, and before- and after-school.

In fact, PE, in particular, has been identified as one of the greatest, yet untapped, public health tools to increase youth physical activity and help eliminate health disparities. PE offers students of all abilities and backgrounds the opportunity to be physically active and to obtain the skills and knowledge needed to facilitate a lifetime of activity and health-enhancing behavior. Additionally, PE is also positively related to scholastic achievement, including increased cognitive skills, academic behavior, and success.

Image Credit: Hannah Thompson

In recognizing this connection between physical activity and student performance, California mandates 1st – 6th grade students get the equivalent of 20 minutes of PE/day.

These kinds of disparities in PE provision are typically driven by multiple factors, including funding for PE teachers, PE curriculum, and equipment.

Potentially just as important, though unfortunately less studied, is the role of schools’ physical activity facilities in disparities in PE provision and student physical activity. One study found that that unavailability of school facilities (e.g. gyms and playgrounds) was a barrier for school physical activity programs like PE and that the barrier was greatest in urban, primarily non-white, and high-enrollment schools. In the same study, the availability of a school gymnasium was associated with more weekly physical activity in all schools, but especially in schools in humid climate zones.

Image Credit: Hannah Thompson

In work our research lab at UC Berkeley has done studying PE in San Francisco public schools, teachers have cited limited indoor facilities for PE as one of the top three barriers to providing quality PE class that meets state laws. This makes perfect sense, intuitively. When it rains virtually non-stop for 3 months (like it recently has here in Northern California), not having a gymnasium or some other dedicated space where students can run around and play, often results in cancelled PE classes (not to mention, a very restless group of students).

School facilities have not only been linked to improved PE-related outcomes, but to overall opportunities for physical activity during the school day, for students and staff, alike. The presence of safe, attractive, and age-appropriate equipment (like play structures) and outdoor space (like blacktops with painted markings and fields) have been linked with greater student accumulation of MVPA during recess. The facilities encourage children and adolescents to participate in active play not only during recess, but during lunch, and before- and after-school, as well. Available and accessible gymnasiums and open indoor spaces enable students to play actively during inclement weather or when outdoor facilities are being used for other purposes. Outdoor walkways; clean, wide halls; and tracks can increase walking during class breaks and before and after school. The presence, use, and maintenance of school facilities can have a major impact on opportunities for both school sports and after-school programs (e.g., if you don’t have a baseball field, it’s quite challenging to field a baseball team). Finally, specifying stairwell placement, building flow, and classroom design (including space allotment for standing desks, physio balls, and other classroom equipment), all have real potential to increase physical activity during the school day for both students and staff.

It is imperative that schools continue to invest in the building and maintenance of physical activity facilities, not only to improve health for today’s youth, but to help ensure healthy outcomes for the generations to come.

Hannah Thompson, PhD, MPH

Research Scientist, UC Berkeley School of Public Health

ThompsonH@Berkeley.edu

]]>Cailin2017-06-21T20:21:00+00:00https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/site/tardiness-and-poor-school-facility-conditions-are-interconnected
https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/site/tardiness-and-poor-school-facility-conditions-are-interconnected#When:16:24:00ZThe California Department of Education’s new California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) provides loads of insight for state and local leaders into what makes for healthy school environments…and what doesn’t. A perpetually overlooked aspect of school health and overall school climate is the condition of a school’s facilities and grounds. Here at the Center for Cities + Schools, we’ve looked at this issue in a number of studies – and we have found alarming patterns of underinvestment in California’s K-12 facilities , which raise serious questions about whether or not children are attending school facilities that are healthy, safe, in good repair, and promoting high quality teaching and learning. A new report from WestEd, using the CHKS data finds that 32% of California’s 11th graders describe their schools as having low quality physical environments. The study finds that student perceptions of the quality of their schools’ physical environment are strongly related to the demographic composition of schools: lower rated schools have greater percentages of kids on free/reduced priced meals and higher expulsion and suspension rates. [CLICK HERE to view the full report.]

The disparity in school facility conditions may be having disparate impacts on students throughout California. In our work with high school students through UC Berkeley’s Center for Cities + Schools Y-PLAN (Youth – Plan, Learn, Act, Now!), I have seen firsthand the unique ways that school facility conditions affect students. I’d like to illustrate how these connections are sometimes hidden…but nonetheless impactful on students.

“How many of you have been tardy to a class this year?” The principal of an inner city California public high school pressed students during the question and answer portion of a presentation last month on ways to improve school climate.

The hands of four of the five presenters slowly and sheepishly raised into the air. These students had spent the previous two months researching school climate and selecting topics to tackle, from security guard relationships to student stress levels to tardiness to class. They mapped the school grounds, perused the school’s survey, drafted their own and surveyed over 200 of their peers, and conducted interviews with students and educators alike as part of the Y-PLAN methodology. Their presentation was packed with data, but lacked the personal connection, and their principal knew to push further.

“You’re all conscientious students. You know if you’re late to class you fall behind, and you get detention. Why are students still coming to classes late?” His genuine question opened the floodgates to the information he sought. The five presenters, with the help of the other 35 members of their class, chimed in with causes of tardiness that have been echoed by Y-PLAN students from struggling schools serving primarily low-income students of color from across the state and the country.

Two primary issues that emerged as the most important in this school were the quality of the lockers and the bathrooms. The lockers are old, broken, and don’t lock[JV6] . With many dating from 1965, they are older than the students’ parents. If students use broken lockers, their belongings get stolen. If their textbooks get stolen, they have to pay for them. To avoid this, they share with friends, which can cause them to be late as they wait for the friend to arrive and open the locker before navigating across the large school campus to get to class.Secondly, the bathrooms[JV7] are in a state of disrepair. Very few stall doors lock, or even close, when they exist at all. Toilets overflow and flood the floors. In this particular school with more than 1500 students, students reported that only one stall in one girls’ bathroom was currently working properly. Students chose to wait to use the bathroom when necessary, and deal with the consequences of tardiness to class.

The principal listened intently, tracking notes as the students spoke. After a moment of silence, with a concerned tone, the principal asked “Why haven’t you told us? We don’t use these facilities, so we were unaware of the condition.”

The students hesitated before responding. His question was genuine, and one shared by caring educators everywhere. Yet the answer seemed so obvious to every student in the room that they weren’t sure where to begin.

“We didn’t expect anything to be different.” Students in our most struggling schools see images of new, clean school facilities in other places, yet walk the halls of their decrepit buildings, with no windows, with trash cans collecting rainwater leaking through ceilings, with graffiti covering their walls, with trash lining their walkways, heaters and air conditioners that don’t function, doors that do not close properly, in classrooms without enough desks, or space to put them.

Y-PLAN challenges students to tackle a school-based problem, from tardiness to recycling to school spirit. They collect primary source data and analyze it critically. They start with disparate questions, but their recommendations typically converge on one specific theme: when we allow our young people to attend schools in these conditions, they learn that we do not think they deserve any better. When the students who identify their schoolsand grounds as unclean, their buildings and yards as not in good condition are disproportionately eligible for free or reduced student lunch and are overwhelmingly African American and Latino, we reinforce their understanding of where our priorities lie. When we show them through our choices that we don’t think they deserve any better, how can we hope they still expect better for themselves?

The relationship between the quality of a school’s physical environment, its academic and school connectedness outcomes, and the racial and socio-economic background of the students illuminated by the recently released California Healthy Kids Survey will not be new information for the students who admitted that their schools and grounds are not clean and tidy, that their buildings and yards are not in good condition, and that their classrooms are so crowded they cannot concentrate. The bigger question is whether and how we will address these disparities and prove to our lower-income students of color that we know they deserve better in our hands.

Click here for the full 2015-2016 CHKS School Facilities Results report.

Amanda Eppley is the Y-PLAN Program Director at the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley.

]]>Cailin2017-04-27T16:24:00+00:00https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/site/detroit-students-promote-the-campaign-for-healthy-schools
https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/site/detroit-students-promote-the-campaign-for-healthy-schools#When:19:27:00ZThe Center for Cities + Schools in collaboration with Wayne State University’s Volunteers, Administrators and Coaches (VAC) have been implementing Y-PLAN Initiatives over the past nine years. For the past two years students have been engaged in a multi-year effort to promote healthy eating and active living in the schools, housing developments, and neighborhoods in the urban core of Detroit. As part of this effort, the children ages 4-14 at Brewster Homes and Parkside Village, created posters as a public awareness campaign to increase healthy behavior and healthier school environments.

Students, like young illustrator Martez Vance (pictured here), worked individually or in teams, to create bold posters featuring slogans, images and design elements.

As part of the collaboration with CC+S, the students in the VAC program assessed their public school facilities, and generated posters - maps representing their critique of the environment —especially with respect to health and safety.

This poster, by Coreyanna Milton, was selected by the Healthy Schools Network to feature on their website in honor of April 4, 2017 National Healthy Schools Day.

Ron Simpkins presented the data generated by the students at December 2016 Summit to Map PK-12 Facilities Equity— facilitated by The 21st Century School Fund and UC Berkeley's Center for Cities + Schools in partnership with the National Council on School Facilities and the Center for Green Schools at the USGBC, sponsored by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation.

Once a “food desert”, Brewster Homes is now only blocks from a Whole Foods market, that was in part the result of lobbying by community activists such as Grace Lee Boggs. The Healthy Eating, Active Living curriculum focuses on individual behavior as well systems change at the neighborhood, school and city level. While creating these posters the students also learned about elements of graphic design, and together with facilitators had some discussions about design as a professional pathway.

The number—and the proportion—of students enrolled in public charter schools (independently run public schools) is increasing nationwide, particularly in urban school districts. The public policy debate in education on the pros and cons of charter schools remains tenuous and divided. Market-oriented educational reformers favor charter schools as the answer to the problems in urban public school systems; public and private funds available for constructing and running charter schools continue to increase.

However, charter schools have many critics. For example, in 2016 the NAACP and the Black Lives Matter Movement passed resolutions critical of charter schools and the privatization of public education overall. Complicating the charter school debate is the mixed academic achievement results seen among charters nationally. For example, a 2013 study from the CREDO Institute at Stanford University found that charter schools outperform traditional public schools (TPS) in reading and are comparable in math. In contrast, other researchers have found that charter schools affect enrollment patterns, segregation[ii], and performance[iii] in nearby traditional public schools.

While most debates about charter schools focus on academic achievement, little analysis has looked at how charter schools may affect neighborhoods. It is well understood that school quality is an important factor in how households select neighborhoods in which to live[iv], but less is known about if and how charter schools affect neighborhood change and household location choice. For example, does the opening of a charter school draw households with relatively higher incomes, and distinct sociodemographic characteristics, to move into lower-income neighborhoods? Is the search for higher quality schools outside a household’s neighborhood the first step in eventual residential relocation? Are households with school-age children agents of neighborhood change, representing a new subset of gentrifiers? Are charter schools new institutions of gentrification? Or conversely, are they opening in already gentrifying neighborhoods? And whether they emerge before, after or during, what role might charter schools play in affecting neighborhood change?

To explore these questions, I looked at Los Angeles, where charter schools are growing rapidly in number. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the second largest district in the country after New York City, has the most charter schools of any district nationwide (though not the highest proportion[v]). Between 1996 and 2013, startup charters went from one percent of all public schools in LAUSD to 21 percent, with 197 active schools. By 2011, charter schools in Los Angeles accounted for 12 percent of public school students and ten percent of public and private combined. Charter catchment areas account for about 72 percent of all census tracts within LAUSD and are located within the estimated attendance areas of 400 traditional public schools.

I measured socioeconomic and demographic change—across space and time—associated with charter school growth in LAUSD from 1993, when the first charter school opened in the district, through the 2013 school year. For these years, I used a parallel approach, looking at census demographic data and public school administrative data to see how schools and neighborhoods were changing. The analysis focused on two overlapping areas during the period of study: charter school-influenced traditional public schools (TPS with at least one active charter school in their estimated catchment areas) and charter school neighborhoods (census tracts with at least one active charter school).

FIGURE 2. CONCENTRATIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY ASSOCIATION WITH TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 1993-2013

Four key findings emerged:

Substantially greater increases in the value of owner-occupied housing in charter school neighborhoods;

Within charter school neighborhoods and charter school-influenced traditional public schools, the changes in the proportion of non-Hispanic white were significantly greater during the period of charter school growth in LA. Additionally, tracts with charter closings demonstrated the opposite trend, with substantially greater decreases in the proportion white than in tracts with no charter closings. Moreover, areas with higher concentrations of charter schools had substantially greater increases in the proportion white;

There were greater increases in the proportion of married-couple white households with school-aged children in charter neighborhoods, as well as greater increases in areas with a high concentration of charters; and

The proportion of white students increased substantially more in charter school-influenced traditional public schools. At the same time, while overall proportion Latino substantially increased throughout LAUSD, it increased less in charter-influenced traditional public schools. Charter prevalence was also associated with smaller increases in the proportion of students designated as English Language Learners in traditional public schools. This indicates that the number of low-income, low-education migrant households is decreasing relatively more in charter neighborhoods.

DATA AND METHODS

The study incorporated a parallel approach, measuring change at both the census tract level and within traditional neighborhood public schools. For the 20-year period between 1993 and 2013, I analyzed the sociospatial relationships between 757 traditional public schools, 222 startup charter schools, 935 private schools, and 1211 census tracts. The neighborhoods dataset includes US Decennial Census sociodemographic indicators at the census tract level. I focused on four metrics of neighborhood change, in line with the consensus from gentrification research: (1) household income; (2) housing values (as prices increase, the demographic who can afford them shifts, often pressuring current residents to move elsewhere); (3) racial/ethnic composition, including married-couple white households with school-aged children by race/ethnicity (these households would be the primary actors in neighborhood change associated with charter school growth instead of the typical young, single professionals typically associated with the phenomenon; and (4) educational attainment. For a detailed description of data and methods, see the full report.

FINDINGS

The parallel approach provides unique insights into important trends associated with the dynamics of socioeconomic and demographic neighborhood change in Los Angeles, in particular significant relationships with key indicators of gentrification—(1) household income; (2) housing values; (3) racial/ethnic composition; and (4) educational attainment. With few exceptions, the findings of each analysis confirmed the trends found in the others. Of the four most important indicators typically associated with gentrification, charter school openings, presence, and prevalence are significantly associated with two, demonstrating substantially greater increases in the proportion of white residents and housing values when compared to neighborhoods with no charter schools. However, they are only marginally associated with changes in median household income and education levels.

Household Income
I found that charter schools tend to locate in relatively lower-income, Latino and black neighborhoods compared to neighborhoods where no charters emerged. Relatively wealthier neighborhoods are less prone to change from gentrification pressures; by definition, poor neighborhoods are more vulnerable to sociodemographic change, and therefore gentrification and potential displacement of existing residents. However, I found no significant relationship between income and charter vs. non-charter neighborhoods.

Housing Values
In both descriptive and multivariate analyses of census tracts, there was clear evidence significantly linking charter openings, presence, and prevalence to substantially greater increases in the value of owner-occupied housing. On average, prices increased 16 percentage points more in charter neighborhoods, while in neighborhoods with a charter school opening, the increase was on average 18 percentage points more. And for every additional charter school, values increased 5.5 percentage points more.

Racial/ethnic composition
The findings on the racial/ethnic composition of charter neighborhoods were the most significant and strongly supported across all four analyses (schools + neighborhoods and descriptive + multivariate). Both within traditional public schools associated with charter schools and in charter school tracts, the changes in the proportion of non-hispanic white were significantly greater during the period of charter school growth in LA (between 2000 and 2010, the proportion white increased 8.5 percentage points more in charter tracts than non-charter tracts, while charter openings were associated with a 10.6 percentage point greater increase and for every additional charter school, the proportion white increased 2.6 percentage points more). Additionally, tracts with charter closings demonstrated the opposite trend, with substantially greater decreases in the proportion white than in tracts with no charter closings (2.6 percentage points more). Moreover, areas with higher concentrations of charter schools had substantially greater increases in the proportion white.

Following the trend of greater increases in the proportion of white residents in charter tracts, there were also significantly greater increases in the proportion of married-couple white households with school-aged children in charter neighborhoods (10.6 percentage points more), as well as significantly greater increases in areas with a high concentration of charters.

The proportion of white students increased substantially more in charter school-influenced traditional public schools (38 percentage points for charter presence, 12 percentage points for a charter opening and for the presence of every additional charter school). At the same time, the proportion Latino decreased relatively more. Charter prevalence was also associated with smaller increases in the proportion of students designated as English Language Learners in traditional public schools. This indicates that the number of low-income, low-education migrant households is decreasing relatively more in charter neighborhoods (charter presence and prevalence are also associated with lower enrollments in traditional public schools, as well as less Academic Performance Index growth; these findings however point to inter-school competition instead of sociodemographic change in neighborhoods).

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The findings indicate several significant, strong relationships between charter school openings, presence, and prevalence and socioeconomic and demographic trends associated with gentrification in Los Angeles during the post-2000 period. If new, higher-income households were electing to put their kids in local public schools—both traditional and charter—the implications of a link between charter schools and neighborhood change could be positive—education research on school integration consistently points towards improved educational and social outcomes for students. While the findings here did indicate a higher proportion white of residents and traditional public school students in charter neighborhoods, they do not indicate whether these changes equate to a greater degree of mixed-incomes or ethnic diversity among households and whether or not they displace lower-income households.

While I found charter schools were located in neighborhoods with a greater increase in housing prices—and in the proportion white—no link was found between changes in income or educational attainment of households. Although the findings do not ascribe causality—what came first, charter schools or gentrification—they do establish the magnitude of change associated with charter school growth throughout LAUSD. Given the unclear patterns in the period prior to charter school growth in neighborhoods where they later emerged, I was ultimately unable to sort out the chicken from the egg.

Just as charter schools have been linked to resegregation of public schools, charter schools may contribute to class stratification within neighborhoods by giving wealthier households the choice to opt out of traditional neighborhood schools. In short, as gentrification has not improved traditional neighborhood public schools, any link between charter schools and gentrification may have adverse effects on neighborhoods, along with any improvements in services, infrastructure, and degree of mixed-incomes among households (assuming limited displacement).

While the findings establish a potential relationship between neighborhood change and charter schools, they pose more questions than they answer. Future research will likely prove fruitful as the number of charter schools—and longitudinal data that enables comparisons—continue to increase. It will be necessary to refine the spatial models used here from a simple binary relationship (neighborhoods and schools are/are not near charter schools) to a continuous measure across space (the closer a neighborhood is to a charter, the stronger the spatial relationship). A continuous relationship more accurately models the decision-making behavior of households with school-aged children, as unlike traditional public schools, which have attendance boundaries, charter schools can accept students from across the city. Relationships that emerge from this type of model have the potential to more definitively measure the relationship between charter schools and neighborhood change.

Of course, fully understanding the relationship between changing neighborhoods and changing schools is no easy task. I would like to point out three important limitations to my research that future research should try to improve upon: (1) observed trends cannot signal the direction of a causal link—in other words, while I identified a relationship between gentrifying neighborhoods and charter schools, I could not establish which came first, charter schools or neighborhood change. (2) Unlike traditional public schools, students are eligible to attend charter schools regardless of their home address; the models for spatial influence of charters could not capture the potential effects of commuter students from another part of the district to the given neighborhood. And (3) many charter schools have a ‘mission to serve the underserved’, which likely weakens any empirical relationship charter schools may have with neighborhood change.

This guest blog is based on Brock’s thesis research for the Master’s in Urban and Regional Planning at UCLA, completed in June 2015. The full thesis can be viewed here. He is currently working with Michael Lens, Associated Professor at UCLA, to expand his thesis research. Brock currently works at Calthorpe Analytics where he leverages data science and spatial modeling to inform land use policy and planning.

[4] Bayer, Patrick, Fernando Ferreira, and Robert McMillan. 2004. “Tiebout Sorting, Social Multipliers and the Demand for School Quality.” Working Paper 10871. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w10871.

[5] According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the District of Colombia has the highest proportion of students enrolled in charter schools, followed by Arizona. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgb.asp

[7] Zuk, Miriam, Ariel Bierbaum, Karen Chapple, Karolina Gorska, Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, Paul Ong, and Trevor Thomas. 2015. “Gentrification, displacement and the role of public investment: a literature review.” No 2015-5, Community Development Investment Center Working Paper, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:fip:fedfcw:2015-05.

]]>Cailin2017-03-09T19:38:00+00:00https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/site/city-school-partnerships-a-natural-home-for-health-equity
https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/site/city-school-partnerships-a-natural-home-for-health-equity#When:19:23:00ZY-PLAN Richmond and the Shift Towards Health in All Classrooms

August 30, 2016 | Deborah L. McKoy and Megan Calpin

In 2015, sixty students peered out at a local landfill as a community elder and environmental justice activist spoke about the persistent health problems caused by the city’s industrial heritage. The students are in their local high school’s health academy, and are beginning to ponder the future health and sustainability of their community. Richmond stands at a crossroads of an environmental justice and health equity movement. The land beneath their feet transitioned from a landfill to wildlife refuge, park, and organic composting facility. The smoke stacks of the Chevron Richmond Refinery – the largest refinery west of the Mississippi – stand opposite from solar power generation on a wastewater treatment plan. These students are advancing this movement themselves, helping transition their community from an industrial past to a future they own and create. To a place they are proud to call home: Richmond, CA.

Y-PLAN is a research-based educational methodology designed to challenge the status quo—inviting children and young people to participate alongside professional planners and other adults in efforts aimed at transforming policy landscapes and built environments. Y-PLAN’s rigorous five-step methodology demonstrates a “double bottom line” of positive outcomes for students and communities. Y-PLAN builds the capacity of young people to effectively contribute to the planning and policymaking process while develops college, career, and community readiness skills.

CC+S has shifted its focus in the past few years to explicitly call out the need for health equity in all planning decisions, acknowledging the natural alignment that exists in making healthier, more equitable and joyful cities – and schools.

Y-PLAN Richmond: Deep Partnership and Mutual Learning

Over the past eight years, students at Richmond High School’s Health Academy have grappled with issues at the core of community health and wellbeing: park development, improving public housing, addressing transportation safety and connectivity, and adopting more equitable school funding. Recently, Y-PLAN projects have been driven toward engaging young people in healthy city planning as the City of Richmond has embraced a city-wide focus on addressing health inequities through a Health in All Policies approach. In 2014, the City adopted an innovative Health in All Policies (HiAP)ordinance and strategy. This document takes a ‘social determinants’ view of health equity, acknowledging “that health starts in communities–where we live, learn, work, and play–and that everyday decisions within the City of Richmond can promote health”.**

“Y-PLAN has changed our planning processes for the better. The values articulated by Y-PLAN are now core principles for public participation in Richmond.”

Examining the root causes of health inequity and engaging young people in asking “why?” was a natural alignment to the Y-PLAN curriculum. City Manager Bill Lindsay said, “Y-PLAN has changed our planning processes for the better. The values articulated by Y-PLAN are now core principles for public participation in Richmond.” In 2015, the City engaged students in the Climate Action Plan, using Y-PLAN as its first stage of community engagement. The plan contains the insights and recommendations from 9-12th grade students at Richmond High School’s Health Academy.

City Manager Lindsay and his staff have taken the student’s recommendations seriously. As Lindsay explained, “We are moving now well beyond Y-PLAN to what our staff has begun to call Y-Implement, our own phrase. We are taking great ideas that come out of your planning process and we try to bring them to fruition.” These ideas include installing bike racks outside of three Richmond schools, including Richmond High.

A student from Richmond High School meets City Manager Bill Lindsay at the Y-PLAN Richmond Final Presentation on April 25, 2016.

In their 2016 projects, students focused on increasing the visibility of mental health support services for students and planning a healthier Downtown Richmond. One group presented to middle school classes about the importance of mental health for success in school. Other students suggested bus stops with solar power phone chargers, lighting, and WiFi to improve safety. A third group suggested the City hire a “Health Manager” to coordinate healthy living proposals, recruit healthy restaurants, and expand local mobile farmers’ markets to the Downtown Area.

A representative from the county health department responded to the mental health proposal: “We’re going to be exploring a public health middle school program and your work represents a huge research and experiential component that we can tap into.”

Y-PLAN’s Impacts and Road Ahead

Over the last 8 years of partnership, high school health academies, the City of Richmond, and CC+S have experienced mutual benefits through sustained engagement. Health Academy students have increased critical thinking, communication, collaboration and civic efficacy though their health equity Y-PLAN projects. City leadership has influenced CC+S’s development of Y-PLAN projects, partnerships, and curriculum to focus more explicitly on health equity as a framing for equitable community development and city planning. Most importantly, the City of Richmond has gained deep insight from student experts who are embedded in the community and thinking about local policy change.

Looking forward, the Y-PLAN initiative seeks to build on insights and inspiration from Richmond and elsewhere to inform the planning and development of healthy, vibrant cities for and with young people across California.

Top picture caption: Students from Richmond High School’s Health Academy explore the Wildcat Marsh and Landfill Loop adjacent to the Chevron refinery (left) and a solar-powered municipal waste water treatment plant (left).

**City of Richmond. (2013). City of Richmond: Health in All Policies Strategy, 2013-2014 (p. 2). Richmond, CA. Retrieved from www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/28771

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Deborah L. McKoy, PhD is the Founding Director of the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools, lecturer in the Departments of Education and City and Regional Planning, and creator of the Y-PLAN initiative. Her research focuses on the intersection of educational reform and community development and the critical role young people play in urban change and transformation. For over two decades, Deborah’s work has bridged the worlds of research, policy and practice, holding a range of professional positions: Consultant to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Chief of Economic Development at the New York City Housing Authority, and Consultant to the United Nation’s Education for All initiative.

Megan Calpin, MCP, MPH, is a Research Associate at the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools. Megan’s research centers around participatory community development and transformation. She is trained as a planner, public health practitioner, and educator. She is passionate about cross-sector collaboration to shift power dynamics and reduce structural inequality in cities. At the Center, she has facilitated two city-wide Y-PLAN projects and infused the most recent Y-PLAN curriculum with a health equity framing.